Ammonds v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ammonds v. Rodriguez

126 A.D.2d 504

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 504 (Ammonds v. Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ammonds v. Rodriguez, 126 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated December 1, 1986, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of serious injury.

Ordered that the order is reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

It is incumbent upon the court to decide in the first instance whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 237). The proof submitted by the plaintiff in connection with the defendant’s summary judgment motion failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment (see, Lorenzo v Witt, 118 AD2d 628). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated December 1, 1986, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of serious injury.

Ordered that the order is reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

It is incumbent upon the court to decide in the first instance whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230, 237). The proof submitted by the plaintiff in connection with the defendant’s summary judgment motion failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment (see, Lorenzo v Witt, 118 AD2d 628). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ammonds-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack